Screen grab of USA offside goal?
in [World Football]
|
From: HASM on 24 Jun 2010 12:38 dk(a)no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) writes: > Get real. No camera and no referee can make a reliable call > when it comes to "few centimeters". This USA non-goal is actually a case where I don't think video replay alone will ever solve. What it missing here is that all those TV shots and replays are made when the ball is kicked and that is quite hard to determine from slow motion, frame by frame, and it needs a very good, probably 6 axis accelerometer inside the ball. Move that point in time a bit back and forth and that changes the place where the players are. And then we have to figure out which body part of attacker and defender is closer to the goal line. Though job. > And the benefit of the doubt goes to offence. Just as a side effect of the quite obvious "if you can't tell an offense has been committed, don't call anything", and in this situation the "offender" is the attacker, and thus may seem to benefit. There is no directive to benefit either side that I know off. -- HASM
From: Manx Gunner on 24 Jun 2010 15:13 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:17:13 +0100, Huw Morris wrote... > Referees make mistakes - it's part of the game. Letting them stand doesn't have to be.
From: Bruce D. Scott on 24 Jun 2010 15:37 Huw Morris (no(a)spam.please) wrote: : I'm getting pretty tired of the whinging from fans of all sides here on rss, : and on other message boards, and the Americans seem among the worst. While : they have a legitimate complaint about that dreadful call vs. Slovenia, the : Algeria "goal" was so tight that it's the sort of decision that can go for : or against you. For that matter, I'm not convinced the offside goal England : "scored" yesterday was actually offside either, but I haven't seen a replay : of that either. This is what I said yesterday. If a call is a 50-50 call that routinely goes either way in the Bundesliga, then I never complain about it. The only reason we were ever in touble yesterday was the poor finishing. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
From: Bruce D. Scott on 24 Jun 2010 15:40 Diabolik (diabolik(a)nospam.com) wrote: : >Stay off the other message boards, then. The US fans on RSS have been : > fine! : Fine? Are you for real??? What a joke! lol! : They're been the biggest whiners in the history of football! That's ridiculous. The Italians are statistically speaking by far worse. Even other Italians are embarrassed by it. Of course, if you go by _television journalists_ many of whom are really just happy-face presenters, then it is worse. The CNN guy this morning said Landon's goal "saves the integrity of the World Cup". You cannot spout worse horseshit than that. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
From: William Clark on 24 Jun 2010 16:47
In article <hvvp8d$luf$1(a)south.jnrs.ja.net>, Huw Morris <no(a)spam.please> wrote: > William Clark wrote: > > Indeed, they do, but I think the frustration is that the technology now > > exists to eliminate many of these errors - it is just that Blather and > > FIFA refuse to move into the 21st century. I don't agree with Donovan > > about it holding up the game, either. The technology exists to make many > > of these "calls" automatic and instantaneous, it is just that FIFA > > refuses to try and develop it. > > I'm not arguing against video replay at all - although I do have some > concerns as to how it could practically be done. (Issues such as, what > situations would you use it for? When would you use it if there is no > stoppage in play? What happens if there is another controversial event > before you can stop play for a look at the video?) > > Huw Yes, I would confine its use to a limited number of specific "goal or no goal" situations to start with, and then see how that goes. Trouble is, Blather won't even countenance it to determine whether or not a ball has crossed the goal line, so what can you do? |